PLATO’S PHILOSOPHER KING IN THE POLITICAL THOUGHT OF SIXTH-CENTURY BYZANTIUM A.S. Fotiou The substance of this paper will be the fragments of an Anonymous dialogue entitled On P o l it ic a l Sc ie nc e which was written probably in Constantinople during Justinian’s time from the viewpoint of the senatorial class. On the basis of internal evidence, the dramatic date of the work can be more securely placed at the beginning of Justinian’s reign, certainly 2 before the Nika Riot of A.D. 532. Nothing is known about the author. He probably received his higher education in Plato's Academy in fifth-century Athens where he was taught the late Neoplatonic philosophy by the best known head of the Academy, Proclus (died ca. A.D. 485). The author was a Christian philosopher who presented his ideas in terms of contemporary Neoplatonism."^ The treatise is an important work in its own right because a) it was the first secular work written on Byzantine political theory, and b) it was an attempt to organize and systematize politico-philosophical concepts current in early Byzantium about the king / emperor and the state. On the whole, the dialogue's character is highly intellectual and eclectic. There is ample linguistic and philosophical evidence in the extant fragments that the Byzantine author had a solid knowledge of Plato, Aristotle, Cicero, certain Hellenistic writers on kingship, and especially the later Neoplatonists from whom he borrowed much of his philosophical vocabulary. Thus, the author's politico-philosophical views are offered in a language which could be accept- 4 able by both Christian and pagan readers. The purpose of the treatise was, it seems, to offer a written constitu­ tion or suggestions for a Byzantine constitution and thus put order to the chaotic conditions which often prevailed during the election of a new emperor at the beginning of the sixth century;^ the treatise "could be read as an affirmation of the right of the senatorial aristocracy . to have the major say in the choice of emperor."^ Of the six books only fragments of Books IV and V have survived on a Vatican palimpsest. The six extant folios from Book IV discuss the military class, the so-called Guardians, and the remaining seventeen folios of Book V deal with kingship. The size of the entire treatise should have been between 130-150 folios long,^ slightly larger than Cicero's De Republics, also, written in six books. An entry in the table of contents to Book V entitled On Kingship reads as follows: A comparison of the R e pu blics of Plato and Cicero: further a comparison of the entire philosophical system of Plato and Aristotle. g Objections are also expressed to some of the ideas of Plato. In view of this revealing entry on the basis of five direct quotations or 9 references to Plato in the body of the extant Book V, there is no doubt that the Anonymous had read the political works of Plato and was influenced by them in his use of the appropriate vocabulary and ideas. The influence of Plato, to a greater degree, and of the Neoplatonists to a lesser extent, is unquestionable.^ Is Plato then his model? The Byzantine author is cautious on this point. He says that he avoided any specific model for his state. Menodorus, the principal of the two speakers, says emphatically: "We began to examine the state in general, I think, i.e. the moder­ ate and the best kind, and not this or that particular type as Cicero did with the Roman constitution."^ There are, however, certain specific aspects of Plato's R e pu blic which were an obvious influence on the Byzantine p o l i t e i a . I shall choose only four of them and trace them in the Byzantine dialogue: 1. The class stratification of the state. 2. Justice as the principal virtue of the ideal king. 3. The criteria for the selection of a ruler / king 4. The training of the philosopher king: his apprehension of the Good. 1 . Class Stratification The state, according to the sixth-century Byzantine author, is made up 12 of three parts: counsel, manpower, and resources. All three components are equally essential and complementary to each other. A state's health and strength are dependent on all three parts. On the basis of this evaluation, the Byzantine writer divides his state into three classes which reflect, as in his Platonic model, natural differences of endowment;^ in the state each individual is assigned into a certain class in which he perforins his own t h i n g . On top of the social ladder are placed the so-called "best men," the 14 a r is t o i or tagma of the a r is t o i . This elite group corresponds to the Rulers (a rch o n te s), that section of the Guardian class which Plato assigns the highest position in the state. In both Plato and the Byzantine author, members of this group form a deliberative and legislative body of the state because their predominant virtue is wisdom, the basis of their laws and orders. It is the only class whose interests coincide with the interests of the state as a whole: "They do always whatever they deem to be in the interest of the city," writes Plato.^ Likewise, the Byzantine author des­ cribes this class of "best men" as those "who have been appointed to continu­ ously supervise the life and individual pursuits of each citizen . and accustom them to a life of moderation."16 There is, however, a fundamental difference between Plato and the Byzantine author: whereas Plato’s Rulers are purely a deliberative and legislative body, in the Anonymous dialogue certain "best men" are assigned administrative, military, and financial functions.^ Obviously the Byzantine author wished to reflect more the realities of his time than Plato. The second class in both authors is made up of the Guardians or the 18 "warrior class," whose natural aptitude, courage, is suitable to make them professional soldiers responsible for the security of the state. They are the executive branch of the state. Again there is a basic difference that most distinguishes the Platonic Guardians from the Byzantine. In Plato, the Guardians are an exclusive and separate group of warriors placed close to the Rulers' class, whereas in the Byzantine treatise only the high ranking 19 Guardians are drawn from the class of the a r i s t o i , while the rank and file are recruited from the lowest class. Again, the Anonymous chose to reflect the prevailing conditions of his time more realistically than Plato. On the bottom of the social ladder is placed the productive class, whose only aim is to produce enough to satisfy their own physical needs and those of the upper classes. The distinctive excellence of this large group is self-control over their predominant appetitive drives. In the Byzantine treatise these professional and labour groups are summarily entitled "the rest of the state groups, tagmata o r system ata. A fair number of them are reminiscent of the Empire's trade guilds. There is little precious informa­ tion in the extant fragments about the third class . The Anonymous author in Book V is principally concerned with the first class, the "best men" with whom the king was inextricably connected just as Plato's philosopher king and the ruling Guardians were indistinguishable. 2 . The Philosopher King: His Justice At the top of the political and social structure stands the king (basileus) , who is selected from among the class of the best men because of 21 his high qualifications: virtue, expertise in public affairs, rank, suit­ able age, and dignity. The king's duty is to be an imitator of God, the 22 image and even likeness (homoioma) of God on earth. The Byzantine writer, borrowing Plato's identification between political and kingly philosophy, writes: "We have shown that kingship and political philosophy are identical, 23 since it is an imitation of gad." The argument the Byzantine author used is missing, but Plato's argument was that the "statesman being an embodiment 24 of all virtues coulduld be the prototype of the kingly man." So the two terms 25 became synonymous. The concept that the king should imitate God is an extension of the views 26 expressed by Plato particularly in his Statesm an, where the analogy of God and the perfect king is discussed. The idea, however, as mentioned earlier, 27 28 appealed to later philosophical schools, Stoic, Hellenistic, Neopythagorean, Neoplatonist,^ and Christian writers,^ who elaborated on it and made it a central theme of their imperial ideology. The entire investigation into the imitation of God by the king, the topic of Book VI, is conducted on the basis of the Platonic language of doxa (opinion) and epistem e (scientific knowledge). The Anonymous Byzantine author w rite s : We shall attempt to conduct our inquiry into kingship scientifically (e p i s t e m n i k o s ) . through reason (logos) . Whatever, however, cannot be found out scientifically, we shall use as our guide right opinion (doxa o r th e ), which can give an account, and the divine creation.^ In the above excerpt the divine creation — obvious a Christian element here — becomes the last resort of the inquiry. Christian philosophical 32 writers often used the divine creation as evidence for the good order in the world and the care of God for His creation. As God's representative on earth, the ideal king should govern his subjects in imitation of the heavenly king and his virtues should be a copy of the virtues of his prototype, i.e.